It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question about theories

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Over the years, I've seen countless posts that begin something like "the theory of E=MC2 never made sense. So I have a new theory about how this works."

You've seen those posts.

Now -- I have a question for people: Why is the answer to "this doesn't make sense to me" NOT "Ohboy... I need to learn a bunch of things so I can understand it?" Why is the response "This means it's wrong so I need to construct a new theory that makes it right"?

Why don't they see it as a call to either start learning stuff OR an understanding that there's stuff they probably will never comprehend (like... err.. modular form of weight k for the group (I looked that one up on Wikipedia and no, I don't understand it either))?

What's your idea on this?




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Science in the Western world is flawed. Theories are taught almost as if they are fact. Who came up with the theory matters greatly. Theories are in fact unproven ideas, nothing more.

A question for you OP, why do you dismiss theories based on your perception of the poster's education level?

Remember that all through history, learned people, scientists and elements within mainstream science have pulled some laughable clangers. "The speed at which steam trains will travel will squish passengers in their seats". OR "Man will never travel beyond the speed of sound." Both of these were backed up with copious amounts of verbiage and calculations and computations.

Theories are a starting point to enable us to search for answers. In themselves, they are not answers, only the prelude to questions.

P



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Well, we've all met those people who know everything about everything, no matter what topic you happen to be discussing.

I would imagine many of the posters you're describing are individuals like that. But then again, maybe some of those armchair theorists have it right? But they are lost in the seas of internet forums.

I don't pretend to understand anyone else's reasoning for doing anything other than my own. I think many people would believe some of the things I do or think are completely absurd, when it makes perfect sense in my head.

Somethings we will just never know.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

What's your idea on this?

Learning stuff is hard.
It's much easier to just say something is wrong because "it doesn't make sense" than to demonstrate exactly why it is wrong because to do so one would have to learn something.
It's much easier to make stuff up than to learn something.
edit on 9/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Over the years, I've seen countless posts that begin something like "the theory of E=MC2 never made sense. So I have a new theory about how this works."

You've seen those posts.

Now -- I have a question for people: Why is the answer to "this doesn't make sense to me" NOT "Ohboy... I need to learn a bunch of things so I can understand it?" Why is the response "This means it's wrong so I need to construct a new theory that makes it right"?

Why don't they see it as a call to either start learning stuff OR an understanding that there's stuff they probably will never comprehend (like... err.. modular form of weight k for the group (I looked that one up on Wikipedia and no, I don't understand it either))?


What's your idea on this?


Axioms can never have proof. All theories are based on axioms that are interpertations of what is most evident from observation. When we first thought euclidean geometry described the world, the most evident way to quickly get from one place to another was a straight line. We thought this was a fact by axiom. Until we discovered non-euclidean geometry, we thought triangles had 180 degrees.

As an example, let me ask you a question:

If you travel south 10 miles, east 10 miles and then north 10 miles, how can you arrive at the same place you started? Is it possible? If you believe in euclidean geometry only, you will be lost trying to figure out how. It is possible, you just need to start at a zero point. If you start at the pole of the earth, you will arrive back to your starting point and have a triangle with more than 180 degrees. In this case, a straight line is not possible.

If you examine the evolution of logic in mathematical reasoning according to Bertrand Russell's Axiom of Reducibility, you can then follow the sequence of reasoning to this very day. According to Russell and Gödel, any Axiom will require and demand a reasoning above (higher than) the reasoning that measures multiple outcomes. In other words, for all our reasoning in a lower dimension, there are higher reasoning that unify any division or paradox below. As with the example of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry show that one reasoning of an Axiom is not necessarily the correct reasoning.

This is precisely why the Bible stands as a shining example of higher reasoning. It is only a paradox until science catches up and admits that light is not simply a duality. It is a trinity of Particle, Wave and Consciousness. Not only is this an Axiom that we can verify now, it is evident from higher dimensions of perspective regarding how energy operates like information. Axioms must change often, otherwise, we will never understand this fully:

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Genesis 1:1-3

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

Genesis 1:27

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

The law of inverse squares states that we will eventually return to the source understanding given time and awareness. Put our current axioms together by the higher reasoning first. Christ is the Word. Read John 1 further and you discover this. He is the first Image of God. That's the Cosmos. We (Mankind) are the image of the first born (Microcosm). We are an image of the trinity of light. We are particle, wave and consciousness. Our sources is much higher than our surroundings. We can verify that nothing rises above its source. We come from something higher than the Earth, Sun and Moon.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Why do we hold together with Word? How is your body constructed? What is inside an acorn that allows a 75 foot oak tree to be enfolded within? WORD / WAVE / INFORMATION. We are a projection in an image of Time, Space, Matter and Energy within an image God created with information and consciousness. It's an image we can only see one way. God sees through us and on His side as well.

Now that you know, how close is science to figuring out how God did it? Axioms are off by one slight element in the equation. Apart from recognizing and acknowledging consciousness as primary to matter, science misses the necessary component of its Axioms. What is most evident is this:

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

The concrete is built from the abstract. Abstract is all that exists. Matter is the illusion.

This is a primary first axiom. From this highest order of logic, we can then descend from the top harmony of logic. Until then, we are swirling in a feedback loop of lower reasoning.

1 Corinthians 13

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

We are children of God until we are no longer children. Axioms should be based on this first.



edit on 1-9-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358





I don't know where your getting your information from, but where exactly are theories taught as fact?



Who came up with the theory matters greatly.

No it doesn't.





Theories are in fact unproven ideas, nothing more.

Well, thats one definition out of many, many more.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Over the years, I've seen countless posts that begin something like "the theory of E=MC2 never made sense. So I have a new theory about how this works."

You've seen those posts.

Now -- I have a question for people: Why is the answer to "this doesn't make sense to me" NOT "Ohboy... I need to learn a bunch of things so I can understand it?" Why is the response "This means it's wrong so I need to construct a new theory that makes it right"?

Why don't they see it as a call to either start learning stuff OR an understanding that there's stuff they probably will never comprehend (like... err.. modular form of weight k for the group (I looked that one up on Wikipedia and no, I don't understand it either))?

What's your idea on this?


I understand what you're saying, but if we never questioned common knowledge, then the earth would still be flat. Michael Faraday didn't have the math to connect light with electromagnetism (or something along those lines), but that didn't stop him from asking questions, and from being right!

Faraday received little formal education



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

What's your idea on this?

Learning stuff is hard.
It's much easier to just say something is wrong because "it doesn't make sense" than to demonstrate exactly why it is wrong because to do so one would have to learn something.
It's much easier to make stuff up than to learn something.
edit on 9/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Now hold on a minute, Phage. I will pop in here and conversationally say that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory. But I'm certainly not going to send this belief to some well-respected science journal. I guess I'm saying that it's not the verbal vomit one spews, but WHERE one spews it.

edit on 9/1/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

It doesn't take much observation (especially by seafaring cultures) to realize the world is not flat.
Faraday...from your source:

At fourteen he became the apprentice to George Riebau, a local bookbinder and bookseller in Blandford Street.[13] During his seven-year apprenticeship he read many books, including Isaac Watts' The Improvement of the Mind, and he enthusiastically implemented the principles and suggestions contained therein. At this time he also developed an interest in science, especially in electricity. Faraday was particularly inspired by the book Conversations on Chemistry by Jane Marcet.
en.wikipedia.org...

He Took the time to learn something and behaved as a proper scientist, designing experiments to test his ideas. It's not quite the same as making things up or just insisting that someone else is wrong. His discoveries didn't just come to him. It took study and work.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 





I don't know where your getting your information from, but where exactly are theories taught as fact?

The public education system in America.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
I will pop in here and conversationally say that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.


Okay... the Big Bang theory is based on a lot of math (which I don't understand) based on a lot of physics (that I don't understand.)

What is your basis for disagreeing with the BBT? For me, it's "okay... that's their current mode and when they get better instruments or evidence they may change it someday but till then, they know more about this science than I do." So I don't really agree/disagree -- it's more like "this is the current thinking."

You've got some sort of opinion that differs -- is it that you're finding the physics wrong (I really don't understand the equations, myself) or what?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
One of the reasons is that many people incorrectly apply the word 'theory' to its everyday meaning when discussing science. A 'scientific theory' is something completly different altogether...



A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena.

Steven D. Schafersman


Source: Scientific Theory and the Scientific Method

The full article is well worth a read.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


Because something does not make sense to you it should not prohibit you to express that fact and even theorize differently. What is often wrong is that credentials and visibility often signify more than objective findings and rational conclusions.

The best way to prove a theory is to attack it, using the scientific method, sometimes you can not tests or get at the core of the problem but you can insulate and test parts or variables of it in ways that a theory can be disproven. The inability to disprove a theory is what gives them status as soon as a theory can be fully tested it becomes a fact.

Now another problem is that much visibility is provided to dimwits, even more than to the real interesting persons (you can find them but is a bit harder, see TED for instance). And that a majority of the population is too busy in surviving than in critically think about problems that does not directly impact their survivability...



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jiggerj
 

It doesn't take much observation (especially by seafaring cultures) to realize the world is not flat.
Faraday...from your source:

At fourteen he became the apprentice to George Riebau, a local bookbinder and bookseller in Blandford Street.[13] During his seven-year apprenticeship he read many books, including Isaac Watts' The Improvement of the Mind, and he enthusiastically implemented the principles and suggestions contained therein. At this time he also developed an interest in science, especially in electricity. Faraday was particularly inspired by the book Conversations on Chemistry by Jane Marcet.
en.wikipedia.org...

He Took the time to learn something and behaved as a proper scientist, designing experiments to test his ideas. It's not quite the same as making things up or just insisting that someone else is wrong. His discoveries didn't just come to him. It took study and work.


But, how many here are capable of such research? Does that mean we're not allowed to chat on a topic that we haven't devoted half our lives to? Of course, I'm not saying that one should be arrogant about it, but what's the harm in saying things like: Hi, I'm 36 and deliver pizzas for a living. Is it possible that science has it wrong about stem cell research? (Okay, I laughed at that, but there's still no harm in it.)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


S&F for the introspective thread. I learned a little about number theory & found this modular form link more explanatory than wiki’s example using the SL(2,Z) group, so thanks for that!

The other posters made good points; especially, about those that need to be heard more than they need to be right & about those horrible lazy comfort-seeking unscientific theorists—how do they live w/themselves?

I’ll add that ego plays a huge role in the defensiveness by those who are considered ‘in the know’, as well as, adamant wheel reinvention by those that wish to be considered as ‘in the know’. In given circles, we can easily come across like a Cliff Clavin or a Homer Simpson; nonetheless, the internal strife with our own fallibility can be a difficult pill to swallow; especially, when we’ve lost objectivity & become fixated on what we wish to be correct.

Often, the less we know the more complex something seems. Once we gain a thorough breadth, it’s only natural to identify the flaws in what we think we know; after all, we’re only human. Some try to avoid this dissonance with lotto guesses & magical thinking. In all actuality, even the greatest knowledge is limited by the perceptual interpretation of its recipients; that said, I try to keep in mind that if I can’t spot the a**hole in the room, I’m him!



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by jiggerj
I will pop in here and conversationally say that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory.


Okay... the Big Bang theory is based on a lot of math (which I don't understand) based on a lot of physics (that I don't understand.)

What is your basis for disagreeing with the BBT? For me, it's "okay... that's their current mode and when they get better instruments or evidence they may change it someday but till then, they know more about this science than I do." So I don't really agree/disagree -- it's more like "this is the current thinking."

You've got some sort of opinion that differs -- is it that you're finding the physics wrong (I really don't understand the equations, myself) or what?


I just used the BBT as an example. But, I will say that (in my completely uninformed and uneducated opinion) I just don't buy either the religious explanation or the scientific explanation that something came from nothing. We can't get one from zero. We can't take something and reduce it to absolute nothing.

But again, that's just my opinion. I'm not going to call a scientist an idiot for using math to come to the conclusion that the universe did, indeed, come from nothing. Does this disqualify me from chatting about it here or with friends?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 




Science in the Western world is flawed. Theories are taught almost as if they are fact. Who came up with the theory matters greatly. Theories are in fact unproven ideas, nothing more.


You make several points that are flawed. I start by stating that you do not seem to understand the scientific process.

But lets see "Science in the Western world is flawed." this makes no sense, you could say "Science in the Western world has flaws" (you could be right, but you are categorizing those making science), note that if it was "Science has flaws." would be harder to prove, the scientific method was a great evolution for mankind (the process that got us there is itself very interesting). At present it is the best methodology available to study phenomena and evolve human knowledge about reality.

On the "Theories are taught almost as if they are fact." it depends on the teaching institution and society in general, I do not know where you live or gotten your education. I see issues with the general media treatment of scientific knowledge, but journalists often do not have the basis to present scientific material, even scientists have an hard time making scientific knowledge accessible to those without a proper education. The problem here is more on the stratification and how societies evolved towards specification of functions. Scientists often are not even capable of understanding papers that are outside their field. Then there is also a lot of demagogy and the idea that magic is the best avenue to explain away complexity to the masses is still prevalent.

Now the problematic " Theories are in fact unproven ideas", it is not so simple as that. Since you are on ATS you probably familiar with the term "ancient aliens theorists", this falls into the same problem. It is not any type of idea, it must be an idea that had grounds in facts or evidences, speculations themselves can't be categorized as hypothesis. In simple terms an hypothesis is a well formed theoretical answer to a well defined question.

Note that for instance mathematical theorems are not the same thing, take a look here The Scientific Method (a Wikibook project that everyone is welcome to participate). There are other divergent terms that can get confused see this blog post that I found on a quick search regarding the distinction between Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions.
edit on 1-9-2012 by Panic2k11 because: adding another link



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 



Why don't they see it as a call to either start learning stuff OR an understanding that there's stuff they probably will never comprehend (like... err.. modular form of weight k for the group (I looked that one up on Wikipedia and no, I don't understand it either))?


There have been a number of studies into the nature of human intelligence. One thing tends to resonate through all of them: people of low aptitude/ability tend to over-estimate their ability to perform disproportionately to those of markedly higher performance.

Everyone tends to over-estimate their own abilities and believe his/her own perspective to be valid and/or unique (regardless of their status and accomplishments). It's what distinguishes us as individuals.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions regarding the sensibility of existing theories. I, for one, reject the classic interpretation of Special Relativity (that even Einstein later came to reject due to its numerous paradoxes that ultimately require a preferential reference frame), and all of the theories built off of it that time travel may be possible (spare for slowing or speeding the effective rate of 'time' locally in comparison to more distant sources - a sort of 'stasis pod' or 'hyperbolic time chamber' - depending upon what your goal is, but it will never allow for a 'time machine').

Now - I have a bunch of other little theories to throw in there of varying degrees of complexity and completeness.

I think the difference between myself and some of the others on this forum is my ability to consider many different possibilities. While I will take up a position for debate purposes - I thoroughly enjoy not knowing, for certain, how/why something is the way it is. I love considering the many different possibilities that can explain it, and tend to reject "stiff" theories by virtue (or out of spite).

Others simply like a theory to conform to their world view. They will take the inch afforded to them by a new discovery or experimental result and run a mile with it. While this can be fun in an exploratory sense - a lot of these types like to claim it's proof that they have some higher understanding of the universe.

And let's be real. I am the one with the keys to the universe - and I am not about to let anyone else have them, yet.


I'm not above being ridiculous in my overly dry sense of humor, particularly where it plays to my inherent arrogance.

Of course, the problem in discussing many of the standard theories and their forum-presented contenders is that even many people with degrees are merely dogmatically educated in the theory. They can throw the text book and formulas around - but they aren't very adept at explaining the theory - because they, often, do not understand it.

For an example of this - look at computers. How many people can explain to you the 'theory' of an operating system? Many people can use one and tell people how to accomplish a number of different tasks of varying "skill levels" within an operating system.

But how many actually understand what an operating system is and could hold their own in a conversation proposing a new operating system design?

While you might expect to find those individuals working in tech support, software engineering, etc - you'll find that very few of them actually have an intrinsic and dynamic understanding of the operating system. They are merely familiar with them.

Which is why it's important to challenge what we think we know - both established and preliminary.

Though you'll find that many (both in support and opposition to a said idea) are really not all that smart.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I agree somewhat with your post. Most people have knowledge and feel their knowledge applies in cases where it does not apply. There are many known exclusions to evidence used to form theories and the theories depend on certain parameters to be in place to apply. This non real world condition cause the evidence to be misused often. They also take things apart and figure out the pieces, sometimes the reason the pieces fit together under different circumstances is not investigated though. If the reason for the theory is critical then much testing of many types of situations is done to cover the possibility of error. This is often done in the higher sciences like physics and chemistry. These are fairly accurate but sometimes don't work in reality because of unseen reactions.

In the real world, there are many things that change the outcome of things. If you wash your car a seagul comes and craps on it or a little gust of wind sticks dust on it. This is normal in the real world, the conditions of science are often not. Another thing that happens is that Science can't test everything so often applies what is known to something that seems similar to what they know. This sometimes causes the wrong path to be followed in figuring something out. You see what you know in things. You cannot tell what is happening from a video or picture many times because it needs to be seen to know what is happening. Sure, pictures can be used as reference to identify similarities to other evidence but their presence does not always prove things.

I see people misapplying evidence to things a lot. You can tell these people but they sometimes don't listen. They are most often right but the other ten to twenty percent of the time they are wrong. I know I can be wrong, I don't state something as fact very much without trying to include a little about the parameters that apply.

PS. I used to know quite a little about DOS, that's what I initially learned on. I haven't used that in such a long time now that I probably don't remember much. I remember listlib and dir and all that kind of stuff. I can still chase down a virus and kill it sometimes. I remember in seventh grade math punching cards for Michigan Techs big mainframes. The newest and greatest technology of the time. Still like windows 2000.
edit on 1-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldSchoolMom
 


That opinion doesn't narrow anything down. How's about being specific. What theories? Which schools?




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join